Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 143(3) assessment after finding that the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Income Tax : The Court quashed criminal proceedings after finding that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the due date for filin...
Income Tax : Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the requirement of further probe into digital and fina...
Income Tax : The Orissa High Court ruled that an ITAT appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the authorised representative violated the virt...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC directed the State to determine and reimburse differential GST arising from GST implementation on works contracts, su...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras HC held tobacco remains unmanufactured where no new product emerges, setting aside higher compensation cess demand and recl...
Income Tax : The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled tha...
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court implements "Rules for Video Conferencing 2022" for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effect...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 10 was condoned since activities of trust are genuine and denial of benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(2) due to delay in Form No. 10 would cause genuine hardship.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the ex parte assessment, penalty, and demand orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 144B, accepting the taxpayer’s plea of bona fide non-appearance. The court adopted a justice-oriented approach, remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration from the show-cause notice stage.
The Karnataka High Court struck down an Income Tax attachment under Section 281B because the property was exclusively owned by a non-assessee petitioner who acquired it through valid transactions. The court ruled that tax recovery cannot attach property not belonging to the actual assessee, making the order illegal.
The Karnataka High Court struck down the Section 148 reassessment notice for being issued outside the jurisdiction/scope defined by Section 151-A. This decision invalidates the subsequent assessment, penalty, and demand, pending a final verdict from the Supreme Court on the core legal issue.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that payments for software usage to a non-resident are not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or DTAA. The court held the issue was conclusively settled by its own and the Supreme Court’s prior rulings in the assessee’s and similar cases.
